If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I am not screaming but have ordered about 3 months worth of organic flour (comes from the UK), as well as stepped up our other preps especially of things that people tend to panic buy even when they really don't need to (so you get an artificial shortage).

I noticed they found one bomb near the border yesterday and people are now being warned that if they live on the border they may have to try to keep their farm dogs, cats, chickens, etc in a field on one side or the other or face putting their dogs in quarantine (used to be six months, we had to do that with our cats when we moved here).

Again, I am all in favor of England leaving the EU if they want to, I'm just not a fan of doing it with no treaties or agreements in place on how to function in a practical manner here on the Island.

I am sure we will cope, but it may not be a lot of fun in the short term and of course "project fear" isn't helping (Remainers and the EU trying to scare the heck of people on purpose).

Real people do tend to get hurt when one of the negotiating parties takes the "my way or the highway" stance.

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." ~ Frederic Bastiilt

The strongly pro-Brexit Tory MP Nigel Evans has claimed he and colleagues have come up with “about 20” ways Boris Johnson could get around a rebel backbench bill due to become law on Monday, mandating the prime minister to seek an extension to Brexit. Evans did not spell all of them out, but here are some of the ideas that have been floated – and their pitfalls.
Ignore the bill completely when it becomes law

This has been mooted by anonymous sources, but No 10 has said the PM would abide by the rule of law. Aside from the constitutional and political storm it would create – and the potential precedent for future governments – it would be hugely risky for Johnson, who could expect very robust court action, even going to jail. It’s hard to see how even becoming a Brexit martyr would make it worthwhile.
Send a second letter to the EU

This is being considered as an option and has been briefed to papers: when Johnson is obliged to formally seek a Brexit extension, he attaches a second letter saying, in effect: “Ignore the request – we don’t want it.” This would seem unlikely to go down well with EU leaders, and would be seen to go completely against the spirit of the law. As the former supreme court justice Lord Sumption said on Monday: “You’ve got to realise that the courts are not very fond of loopholes.”
Find another way to call an election

Johnson was to try again on Monday to call a snap election for 15 October via the Fixed-term Parliaments Act (FTPA), which requires two-thirds of MPs to back it. With opposition parties pledging to oppose this, it seems destined to fail. One idea mentioned by Evans would be to table a one-line bill amending the FTPA, calling an election in this one case. The benefit for Johnson is that this would need a simple majority in the Commons to pass. The downside is that even a majority could be beyond the government now, and that as a bill the measure could be amended, for example to fix a post-31 October election, or other complications.
Call a no-confidence vote in his own government

Another idea floated by Evans, this would involve using the provision in the FTPA under which the opposition can call a confidence vote, but have the government do this itself. This might just work under the law, but would seem pretty odd and could bring curious scenes in which government MPs are ordered to vote against their own PM while the opposition backs him. Even if Johnson did win the vote and the government then fell, the FTPA puts in place a 14-day period before an election, during which opposition MPs would have a chance to put together a caretaker government.
Resign

A parallel plan, this would involve Johnson resigning rather than having to ask the EU for an extension, and obliging someone else – probably Jeremy Corbyn – to do this in his place, paving the way for an election in which Labour could be blamed for the Brexit delay. There are obvious downsides to this, not least that it would probably install Corbyn as PM. If things turned out relatively smoothly for a few weeks or months, then the Conservatives’ many predictions of immediate chaos under a Corbyn government could start to look a bit hollow.
Ask another EU country to block the extension

This was first raised as an idea by the Tory Brexiter Daniel Kawczynski before the delay forced on Theresa May. He said he had approached the government of Poland, where he was born, to block the idea, as an extension needs unanimous agreement from the EU27. However, it did not happen, and it seems unlikely to be different this time. While it is possible the EU as a whole could block an extension, it would be a big ask for even a relatively maverick member state such as Hungary to damage relations with the other 26 members – especially Ireland – by forcing a no-deal Brexit, and all as a favour for a UK government which could be out of power a few weeks later.

The attention of Brexit-watchers has understandably been focused on Boris Johnson’s disastrous week in parliament and the exact timing of any election. But key to what happens next is, of course, the EU’s position.

When UK (and European) commentators talk about the EU’s stance on Brexit, they almost invariably conclude that “nothing has changed”. Europe’s unity is paramount. Ireland will not be sacrificed. The withdrawal agreement will not be reopened. Even suggesting that Germany’s deteriorating economic conditions may give Berlin some pause for thought is tantamount to heresy. The EU’s Brexit position is fixed in time and space.

The truth, as always, is more nuanced, as I learned during meetings in Brussels at the end of last week. There is real debate in the EU about Brexit. The EU’s position today is subtly different to that of two weeks ago. And its position of two weeks ago subtly different to that which came before. So where is the EU currently on Brexit?

The EU liked Olly Robbins, Theresa May’s Brexit negotiator. Intelligent, thoughtful, persistent and tirelessly hardworking, he was widely respected among his EU peers as someone they could do business with. They were less keen on May herself. Their misgivings were well-founded. Robbins negotiated a Brexit deal widely recognised in Europe as an excellent outcome for the UK, in light of the red lines his prime minister had drawn at the time. Yet May proved incapable of managing the domestic politics and selling his deal. This provides the context for understanding how the EU sees Johnson.

While there is a lot in him they dislike, they welcomed the fact he is a “red-blooded politician”, as one adviser to an EU head of state put it to me. A breath of fresh air compared to May. The fact Brexit is inherently political for Johnson – a means to a bigger Commons majority – creates the glimmer, no matter how slight, that he may be able to get a deal over the line. This, combined with Johnson’s singular focus on the backstop, and his willingness to adopt “a continental line” on global issues at the G7 in Biarritz, gave EU leaders more confidence a deal could possibly be struck.

This was partly why the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, signalled a willingness to explore changes to the backstop, insofar as any new UK proposals protect the Irish peace process and the EU’s single market.

This view still holds – just – despite the events of the last few weeks. But it’s equally fair to say that the goodwill Johnson did establish is quickly ebbing. But this is not for the reasons people might think.

It is true that the government has not tabled any formal proposals to the EU yet. This reinforces scepticism in Westminster that the government is serious about a deal. However, senior EU officials and negotiators were not expecting much prior to the Tory party conference, which runs from 29 September to 2 October. The critical window they have earmarked were the weeks running into the 17-18 October European heads of state meeting in Brussels, and after, until 31 October.

Moreover, trial balloons floated by No 10 have made their way to the EU’s institutions and have been discussed by the 27 member states. These include radically reducing the backstop to sectoral elements and proposing a single all-Ireland regime for agriculture.

David Frost, Johnson’s most senior official for European affairs and the government’s lead negotiator, has also clarified the government’s approach to Brexit, clearly setting out new parameters for the negotiation. Unlike Robbins and May, the Johnson government is not seeking “frictionless trade” with the EU while simultaneously leaving the EU’s two economic institutions that are necessary to deliver it – the customs union and the single market. Instead, Johnson and Frost only want to “facilitate” trade with the EU. They accept that Brexit will mean the UK’s access to EU markets will suffer.

This is where Europe’s concerns set in. The ideas floated by No 10 suggest a trade border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. As one senior EU negotiator puts it: “The backstop means no border on the island of Ireland. But the UK’s solution will result in a customs and regulatory border – which will carry implications for peace.” This is obviously unacceptable for the EU27.

The government also wants to bank the benefits of Brexit by diverging from EU rules to the maximum extent possible. Yet this has fostered the perception in EU capitals that the UK will compete with its firms by undercutting EU standards.

Politically, it makes little strategic sense for the EU to compromise on the backstop – and risk its principles – if the purpose of doing so is to facilitate a deal over a bare-bones free trade agreement (FTA) that would not differ much from a no-deal outcome. “What’s the difference between no deal and a hard FTA?” ponders another adviser to an EU head of state. In no deal, the EU would at least have stuck to its principles.

Once the EU factors in Johnson’s tumultuous week in parliament – that has left him heading an even weaker minority government and facing the high likelihood of an early election – it’s possible to see why its calculus is shifting it again towards a harder, less flexible position.

As the UK slides painfully towards an early election, there is less scope for progress in Brussels. Any formal UK proposals will become political fodder. The EU will have to become more cautious in its response; it will not risk its interventions becoming part of the campaign. As the EU ponders events in London, its window for a deal, while open, is closing.

• Mujtaba Rahman is the managing director of Europe at Eurasia Group, a political risk research and consulting firm

Thanks, Melodi. I went to school in England for a year. Fascinating experience and great education. (For those who aren't aware of the British educational system: It was a grammar school - which is the equivalent to a private high school, which they consider a "public" school, totally opposite of our concept of public and private schools. It was most confusing! lol) I made great friends there, too, and still keep in touch with some of them. I hope the best for them. I did notice the socialists had a huge influence on the country even back then, and how it affected how my fellow students dreamed. Or more importantly, how they didn't dream. I can see how many might find Brexit, and reasserting the country's independence a frightening prospect. Their form of government is interesting, and really great fun to watch - from a distance.

Oh, and I never did figure out cricket.

PS. Sorry for the thread drift. I couldn't help myself this morning. I do find Brexit fascinating as it twists and turns. I hope it doesn't tear the country apart.

John Bercow has announced he will stand down as Commons speaker on 31 October at the latest

Melodi, any analysis and comment?
SS

“Then the creatures of the high air answered to the battle, .., and the woods trembled and the wind sobbed telling them, the earth shook,; the witches of the valley, and the wolves of the forests, howled from every quarter and on every side of the armies, urging them against one another.”
― Lady Gregory, Gods and Fighting Men: The Story of the Tuatha De Danaan and the Fianna of Ireland

Sure, this is the Speaker of the Commons - which is the member of parliament who basically "chairs" the screaming matches ..er..a.I mean meetings and "maintains order" according to "Parliamentary Procedure."

I don't know enough about how exactly the UK system works but wiki says he was in the Conservative Party before becoming Speaker although he was starting to lead more towards Labour when he got his job years ago.

So I guess he isn't an elected MP exactly though Richard or someone that really knows about this can probably answer that one but since he has served under four Prime Ministers I suspect it may be supposed to be a "Neutral" position of some sort.

Anyway, he got a lot of flack for seeming to side with the "Rebel Alliance" during last weeks Circus Side Show - I thought he seemed to be doing a reasonable job of riding herd on a bunch of crazies but I simply don't have the background to know if he really was "playing sides" or not.

So this move is actually not the normal sort of resignation, what it means is he will step down on the 31st of October which means the Tory Party can't replace him before them as they were threatening to do (again I'm just reading this in the papers and I'm now out of my depth already).

I gather by resigning, he assures he sticks around at least until the deadline one way or the other meaning HE WILL CONTROL the debates with certain parameters.

I think his decisions can be challenged in court but that would take some time, and time is something no party really has right now.

I hope that helps, I'm still trying to figure this one out all the way, it is like unraveling a piece of string...

He came under a lot of criticism for seeming

expatriate Californian living in rural Ireland with husband, dogs, horses. garden and many, many cats

I am not sure how much help this article from Sky News is, but it may help a little bit.

Why John Bercow's resignation as speaker is a parting shot to the government
Sky News' Kate McCann says it means the current crop of MPs will pick his successor, not new MPs who could be told how to vote.
Kate McCann
Political correspondent @KateEMcCann

Monday 9 September 2019 17:35, UK

He will stand down on the same day as Brexit

His term in office has been controversial, and announcing his decision to step down as speaker today John Bercow ended his time in the chair as it began.

His speech divided the Commons, as his speakership has, with the majority of Conservative MPs remaining seated while Labour stood to applaud him following an emotional address.

But it was Mr Bercow's choice of resignation date which caused the biggest ripple of nervous laughter, clapping and groans from the green benches.

He announced he will stand down tonight if MPs back a general election - highly unlikely to happen.

If not he will leave the chair on the 31 October, otherwise known as Brexit day.

In choosing such a path Mr Bercow guarantees that the next speaker will be selected by the current parliament, amid concerns that new MPs are more vulnerable to being directed by whips and senior government figures.

In leaving he is seeking to ensure members retain a voice by having a speaker willing to stand to Number 10 if required.

His critics say he has politicised the role, choosing controversial amendments and allowing MPs to take control of parliament in unprecedented times.

His supporters, however, say he has used the office of speaker to defend parliament at a time when the Commons and the government appear to be locked in a battle with no certain outcome.

Either way there has been no shortage of rows and public arguments during his time in office.

He was accused of calling former commons leader Andrea Leadsom a "stupid woman" and allegations about his behaviour towards staff have been repeatedly raised over recent years.

But it was his work to modernise parliament that MPs raised in paying tribute.

Jo Swinson, the Liberal Democrat leader, praised his help in introducing proxy voting (allowing MPs to vote without having to appearing the Commons in person) for those who have recently had a baby or are ill.

She also thanked him for helping to change attitudes towards women, dress and children in the Chamber.

Speaker John Bercow announced he will stand down in tearful speech.

Although his decision to allow male MPs to take off their ties will never be forgiven by some.

Even his critics thanked him for helping them to hold the executive to account though, an attitude that has produced some of the most dramatic parliamentary moments in years.

Sky News Breaking
@SkyNewsBreak
·
1h
MPs have voted in favour of a motion calling for the release of documents relating to plans to suspend parliament and prepare for a 'no-deal' Brexit by 311-302 votes with a majority of nine

expatriate Californian living in rural Ireland with husband, dogs, horses. garden and many, many cats

There have been huge marches in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland this weekend. Scotland and Wales were for independence, Northern Ireland was an anti-abortion march attended by both Protestants and Catholics. Abortion is being imposed on them from UK. This article pretty much explains how England will have to pivot hard to deal with these issues.

A former head of the Brexit department has said a new relationship between the Scottish and UK governments is needed to secure the future of the union.

Philip Rycroft was the chief civil servant in the Department for Exiting the European Union from 2017 to 2019.

He told the BBC that Brexit puts "fresh pressure" on the relationship between ministers in London and Edinburgh.

He suggested a "radical" solution such as moving to a more federal structure might be required to maintain the UK.

The Scottish government wants to hold a new independence referendum in 2020, while the UK government has opposed this.

Mr Rycroft worked for the Scottish Office from 1989 to 1999, when he moved to the newly-established Scottish Executive. He worked there for a further decade, rising to head the education department, before returning to Whitehall in 2009.

He was part of the new Brexit department when it was set up in 2016, taking over as permanent secretary the following year. He took early retirement on 29 March 2019, the date the UK was originally scheduled to leave the EU.

inRead invented by Teads
MPs are locked in dispute over the latest departure date, 31 October, with opposition members passing legislation to block the UK from leaving without a deal while Mr Johnson presses for a snap general election.

Mr Rycroft said the UK was in "unprecedented territory", saying he had "not experienced anything remotely like this in 30 years in public service"

The veteran civil servant is to give a speech in Edinburgh on Monday evening, where he will suggest that the future of the UK could be at risk if a new approach is not considered.

He told BBC Scotland: "There is fresh pressure on a relationship that was stressed anyway, and we've not even reached the end of the beginning yet. There's a whole lot more stuff to come down the Brexit track which will require intense discourse, dialogue and discussion between the governments of the UK.

"I find it difficult to say at the moment how the existing structures can withstand that sort of pressure.

"Any incoming UK government is going to have to think hard and fast about what the offer is to people in Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland in terms of engagement in the next stages of the Brexit process, critically to demonstrate that the interests of the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be incorporated in that process and respected.

"Otherwise there is a risk that in leaving one union, this other union founders."

Mr Rycroft said the UK government may need to "think quite radically" about the links between the nations of the UK if they are to endure.

He suggested that one move would be to "super-charge the existing arrangements", with "Whitehall upping its game on devolution".

However, he said that "given the pressure Brexit will put on the system, that might not be enough", saying a move to a more federal structure for the UK might be needed.

He said: "The UK as a policy is under pressure as never before. Scotland came quite close to deciding to leave the UK, and Brexit has further destabilised that situation. There is clearly a risk that majority opinion in Scotland over time moves to support for independence.

"The UK government has it within its gift to say to people in Scotland, 'look we understand your concerns, we know the key thing you want is your opinion, your interests to be respected in the councils of the land, at the level of the UK, here is an offer that will give you that and will hopefully persuade you to stay in the UK'.

"This needs to be top of mind for this PM and any future PM - if it isn't, they are risking the future of the UK."

Scotland's first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, insists she has a "clear democratic mandate" for a second independence referendum, but wants to win an agreement with the UK government to put any vote "beyond legal challenge".

She said Westminster was engulfed in a "political and constitutional emergency", with Mr Johnson plotting an "anti-democratic move" to "shut down parliament" and push through a "catastrophic" no-deal Brexit.

The SNP leader said she was determined to offer Scots a choice on "a better and more hopeful future as an independent country" during the current Holyrood term.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson, meanwhile, has said "the separatists in Scotland drone on and on about breaking up and smashing the oldest and most successful political union" in order to "detract from their appalling domestic record".

He said the SNP's "signature policy" was to "return Scotland to the European Union after Brexit, compete with the euro, the full panoply of EU laws and the surrendering of Scottish fish just when they have been taken back by this country".

I will put these sorts of reports here in the BREXIT thread for now, since while they never totally went away they have amped up in the run-up to BREXIT. If sadly more serious violence breaks out I will start a specific Northern Ireland thread, but I hope that won't be needed. *sigh*
Bomb found in Derry 'meant for police patrol' - PSNI
Updated / Tuesday, 10 Sep 2019 09:04
Police at the scene in Creggan Heights, Derry, before rioting broke out
A bomb discovered in a parked vehicle in Derry was to be used to attack a police patrol, the PSNI has said.

The device was operated using a command wire.

In a statement, Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton said the "Command Wire Initiated Improvised Device" would have killed or maimed anyone near it if it had detonated.

He added: "It is our assessment that the New IRA is responsible for this bomb."

A full terrorist investigation is under way following the discovery.

Police began a search operation in the Creggan Heights estate yesterday and a number of families were asked to leave their homes.

Assistant Chief Constable Hamilton said that during the operation a crowd of up to 100 people gathered "some of whom attacked police vehicles with missiles and over 40 petrol bombs.

"Police believe at least two young people sustained burn injuries when they tried to use petrol bombs to attack the police cordon. No police officers were injured."

He added: "By bringing a viable bomb into the community they have again proved that have no regard for the lives of anyone living in Creggan.

"Once again they exploited some of the young people in the community to attack police and have brought disruption and misery to families."

Mr Hogan will become the bloc’s trade boss in November and be tasked with negotiating large chunks of Britain’s future ties with Brussels. As trade commissioner, the Irishman will expected to be “hard and fair” by his new boss after she succeeds Jean-Claude Juncker as the EU’s most senior official. Leo Varadkar heaped praise on his fellow party member, as he boasted of the importance of having an Irishman overseeing “this crucial brief.

Ms von der Leyen has tasked Mr Hogan with striking a “very good free trade agreement” with Britain after Brexit.

She told reporters: “I know Phil Hogan as an excellent, very fair negotiator and he has handled the agriculture portfolio in a brilliant way and this is what I expect of him as a trade commissioner.

“He will be very fair but determined negotiator, and where our friends from the UK are concerned, it is very important to have a very good free trade agreement – I think it will determine the good relations we want to have in the future.

We are still in a difficult process, with Brexit we never wanted it but we respect the decisions that are taken by our British friends.

Brexit, should it happen, is not the end of something but the beginning of our future relationship.”

During his time as agriculture commissioner, Mr Hogan was steadfast in his support for the controversial Irish backstop.

Insiders claim that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, he will demand that the Irish border question is resolved before real trade talks can begin.

His support for the backstop will help him garner the votes he needs to have his nomination accepted by MEPs in the European Parliament.

He will be grilled in the coming weeks by members of its trade committee, they will also be keen to put pressure on him to significantly change the current Mercosur with South American states.

Mr Hogan said: “I am very much looking forward to starting in this exciting and challenging portfolio and to supporting president-elect von der Leyen in her pursuit of a ‘strong, open and fair trade agenda’, through which Europe’s role as a global leader can be strengthened.”

Mr Hogan will be joined by Michel Barnier’s former deputy negotiator, Sabine Weyand, who is now the trade departments director-general.

Minutes after the announcement, the Irish prime minister said: “Phil Hogan’s appointment as EU trade commissioner is a very positive development for Ireland. We sought a major economic brief in the new European Commission, and I am very satisfied that we have secured it.

He will work for Europe as a whole, but it is a definite advantage to have an Irish person in charge of this crucial brief over the next five years. He will take the lead on the EU’s post-Brexit trade deal with the UK, as well as Mercosur and trading relations with India, US and China.

“Phil did an excellent job in the agriculture and rural develop brief. He is widely respected in Brussels and across the EU as a skilled negotiator and someone who builds alliances. He has proven vociferous on Brexit and I am sure that this will continue in his new role.”

Mr Hogan has previously heavily criticised Brexit and the push for a “global Britain”, which has was driven by “stubborn facts that over-shadow a rosy picture”.

Global Britain will mean for the United Kingdom a return to medium-sized nation status,” he said.

“Yes it will regain the sovereignty to seek and strike agreements where it wants but with reduced bargaining power, reduced security of its markets and supply chains, and a friction and cost added to each trade shipment to the EU, its biggest trade partner.”

He added: “Stepping into Global Britain is stepping into a difficult world. And there will be a huge gap between hope and experience.”

LONDON (Reuters) - Several British lawmakers launched a new group on Tuesday to bolster efforts to secure a deal to leave the European Union, hoping to persuade parliament finally to pass an agreement based on one it rejected three times.

With the Brexit crisis deepening and parliament suspended, lawmakers are scrambling to find ways to prevent a disruptive no-deal Brexit at the end of October, which they say would hurt businesses, drive up job losses and deepen divides in Britain.

They have passed a law to force Prime Minister Boris Johnson to ask for a delay to Brexit if there is no deal, a move he says will tie his hands in talks but one which many lawmakers hope might make him focus on securing an agreement with Brussels.

The group of Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat lawmakers, called “MPs (members of parliament) for a deal”, said it would try to rally support for an agreement based on one former leader Theresa May had worked on with the opposition Labour Party.

Caroline Flint, a Labour lawmaker who previously voted in favour of May’s deal, said the group would use “the hours, the days, the weeks left” before the Brexit deadline of Oct. 31 to show the “sizeable voice” in parliament for a deal.

“We are all in support of getting a deal and leaving in an orderly way,” she told a news conference, adding there were about 50 Labour lawmakers who wanted a deal. “We may not be as loud as some voices but we are a voice of reason here.”

She said talks between May and Labour had been successful in fleshing out some common ground on Brexit and that the result of those contacts should form a basis for any deal Johnson secures.

Stephen Kinnock, another Labour lawmaker, described the group’s job as showing Johnson “that the numbers are there” to get such a deal through parliament.

Our job as MPs for a deal is to work relentlessly over the next few weeks, getting it out there to our colleagues and saying ‘sign this bit of paper which says we will vote for a deal,’” he said.

But a spokesman for the prime minister said Johnson was working on making progress in areas which differed from some of the things May had talked about before she resigned.

The British Parliament erupted into chaos as Prime Minister Boris Johnson followed through with his threat to suspend the legislature over Brexit Monday night.

Amid the heightened tensions, members of Parliament attempted to prevent House of Commons Speaker John Bercow from leaving the chamber – a ceremonial gesture which signifies that parliament is closed – by pinning him to his chair.

“I held onto his leg I think it was and others held onto his arms,” Lloyd Russell-Moyle, a Labour/Coop MP for Kemptown and Peacehaven, told the Independent in the early hours of Tuesday morning. “We took a symbolic protest to say to Speaker Bercow ‘no we don’t want you to go’ and held him in place temporarily.”

The protest failed, and Bercow was able to leave the chamber to go to the House of Lords to complete the suspension – or prorogation – formalities.

As Conservatives – members of Johnson’s party – left the chamber with Bercow, others chanted “Shame on You!” while they remained inside in protest, holding signs reading “Silenced.” One of those signs was left on Bercow’s char after he departed.

“We held up signs which said ‘Silenced’ because we believe parliament is being silenced,” Clive Lewis, of the Labour Party, told the Independent.

Parliament is suspended for five weeks – until Oct. 14 – a drastic move that gives Johnson a respite from rebellious lawmakers as he plots his next move regarding Brexit.

Opponents have accused the prime minister of trying to avoid democratic scrutiny.

Ahead of the suspension, Bercow had expressed his displeasure, saying: “This is not a standard or normal prorogation.

“It’s one of the longest for decades and it represents an act of executive fiat."

Conservatives in the chamber condemned Bercow’s behavior, saying he was “openly taking sides.”

“Speaker loses plot at the end of Parliament. Openly takes sides. Very sad,” Bob Seely tweeted. “Fear he has lost respect from many. I hope he has not damaged impartiality that survived generations. Pathetic stunt from Labour too. We need a General Election.”

The prime minister has had a turbulent week since Parliament returned from its summer break on Sept. 3. He kicked 21 lawmakers out of the Conservative group in Parliament after they sided with the opposition, and saw two ministers quit his government — one of them his own brother.

Parliament's suspension ended a day of blows to the embattled Johnson. First an opposition-backed measure designed to stop Britain from crashing out of the EU on Oct. 31 without a divorce deal became law after receiving the formal assent of Queen Elizabeth II. The law compels the government to ask the EU for a three-month delay if no deal has been agreed by Oct. 19.

Johnson says the country's delayed exit must happen at the end of October, with or without a divorce agreement to smooth the way. But many lawmakers fear a no-deal Brexit would be economically devastating and are determined to stop him.

"I will not ask for another delay," Johnson said. But he has few easy ways out of it. His options — all of them extreme — include disobeying the law, which could land him in court or even prison, and resigning so that someone else would have to ask for a delay.

It is the first time in more than 70 years a British government has suspended Parliament when faced with opposition.

Meanwhile, Bercow, whose control of business in the House of Commons has made him a central player in the Brexit drama, announced he would step down after a decade in the job.

The colorful speaker, famous for his loud ties and even louder cries of "Order!" during raucous debates, told lawmakers he will quit the same day Britain is due to leave the EU, Oct. 31.

Throughout the three years since Britain voted to leave the EU, Bercow has angered the Conservative government by repeatedly allowing lawmakers to seize control of Parliament's agenda to steer the course of Brexit.

He said he was simply fulfilling his role of being the "backbenchers' backstop" and letting Parliament have its say.

"Throughout my time as speaker, I have sought to increase the relative authority of this legislature, for which I will make absolutely no apology," he said.

Reports have revealed that the Labour Party is planning to vote down the Queen’s Speech next month and attempt to topple the Conservative government with a confidence vote, whilst the rabidly pro-Remain Liberal Democrats plan to rally behind revoking Article 50, cancelling Brexit altogether.

The reports come after Parliament was prorogued last night for five weeks ahead of a new parliamentary session and Prime Minister Boris Johnson lost a second vote in the House of Commons calling for a mid-October election to clear out the lower house of Remainers and break the Brexit deadlock. Despite a new law stopping a no deal Brexit and forcing the prime minister to request another three-month Brexit delay of the EU, Boris Johnson has vowed that he will not ask for an extension and will take the UK out of the EU, as pledged, on October 31st.

Party insiders have told The Telegraph that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is considering ordering his lawmakers to reject the Queen’s Speech, and will table a confidence motion in the government if MPs vote down the speech when the new parliamentary session is opened. The Queen’s Speech is set to take place on October 14th, with the possible confidence motion occurring between the 21st and 22nd.

“If he [Mr Johnson] loses the Queen’s speech you still have to have the confidence vote. The question is whether those Tory rebels will vote with us,” a Labour source told the newspaper.

The revelation comes as Mr Corbyn told the Trades Union Congress annual conference on Tuesday that he will be forcing an election, but only after no deal is taken off the table. The socialist had backed down from holding an election on the 15th, making Corbyn the first Opposition leader to block an election in British parliamentary history. Recent YouGov polling puts the Tories 14 points ahead of Labour, with even former Prime Minister Tony Blair warning that an election next month would result in a “comfortable Tory majority”.

If Labour’s plans are successful and Corbyn topples the government, he would either attempt to lead a caretaker administration or call an election.

Senior figures in the Liberal Democrats and the leftist Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) are said to have also discussed the move, with the Opposition Alliance saying it would only support a General Election after October 21st — after Mr Johnson is required to seek a Brexit extension.

The Liberal Democrats are also planning to put their full support behind revoking Article 50 — the legal mechanism for leaving the EU — cancelling Brexit altogether.

Saying she would take the policy to conference and add to the Party manifesto, Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson told The Guardian: “Whenever the election comes, our position is clear and unequivocal. A majority Liberal Democrat government would not renegotiate Brexit, we would cancel it by revoking article 50 and remaining in the European Union.”

Despite having gained a few new members through party defections in recent months — notably Chuka Umunna formerly of the Independent Group and Labour, and Philip Lee and Sarah Wollaston from the Tories — the Liberal Democrats are still only the fourth-party in British politics. Positioning themselves as the most anti-Brexit party, they have also effectively closed down talks with Labour — which backs a second referendum and voting Remain — on a potential pact. However, Labour has changed its position before, first pledging in its 2017 manifesto to respect the Brexit vote, but announcing its support for a second referendum and backing Remain in July 2019.

On the party’s vow to stop Brexit, Mr Umunna said: “The Liberal Democrats are the number one choice for people at the next general election who are opposed to Brexit. Our position is clear and unambiguous. A majority Liberal Democrat government would not renegotiate Brexit, we would stop Brexit.”

Yeah. I watched a good chunk of the Parliament's closing down of the session last night. The speaker...was he hitting the bottle behind his desk? Or since he's quitting, just didn't give a rip anymore? Anyway, the only thing that could have made their collective phony posturing and gentrified backstabbing funnier would have been if they still wore powdered wigs.

The Brits are well rid of them for at least a few weeks so that maybe something REAL can be accomplished in the line of planning and negotiation without the constant foot-dragging and sabotage.

WTF is wrong with these people? The people of the UK voted to leave years ago, and seem to still want it. The Deal-Brexit people are obviously really Remainers, or they're flat stupid. The Dealers want a deal or no Brexit, the EU does not want Brexit, so guess what: The EU will either make no deal or will offer deals that are unacceptable, so no Brexit. Duh. Duh multiplied by infinity.

No rocket science is needed to figure this out. As a matter of fact, the average bloke can see it as easily as the canniest political wonk. This will not end well if they don't quit with the games.

Why you can trust Sky News
Boris Johnson's decision to suspend parliament is unlawful, a Scottish court has ruled.

The case was originally dismissed at the Court of Session last week, where Judge Lord Doherty said it was for politicians and not the courts to decide on shutting down the Commons and Lords for five weeks.

But three judges of the Inner House, the supreme civil court in Scotland, disagreed with that ruling today.

Snip from a really long article at the UK Daily Mail - worth reading but I am not going to try to format it here.
snip...
Boris Johnson Parliament has suspended ILLEGALLY, Scottish judges rule: Remainers demand Commons is RECALLED as the titanic battle heads for the Supreme Court

Appeal judges in Scotland have sensationally overturned a ruling on Boris Johnson's suspension of Parliament and have now found the move is unlawful. Judge Lord Doherty dismissed a challenge against the planned prorogation at the Court of Session last Wednesday, saying it is for politicians and not the courts to decide. But a panel of three judges has now overturned that decision - meaning the Prime Minister may be forced to reconvene Parliament.
snip...

Boris Johnson's decision to suspend parliament is unlawful, a Scottish court has ruled.

The case was originally dismissed at the Court of Session last week, where Judge Lord Doherty said it was for politicians and not the courts to decide on shutting down the Commons and Lords for five weeks.

But three judges of the Inner House, the supreme civil court in Scotland, disagreed with that ruling today.

The UK government plans to appeal the latest ruling at the Supreme Court - the highest judicial body in the country.
:
An original ruling last week was overturned by three judges of the Inner House
A summary handed down today said: "This was an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities."

It added there were two "principal reasons" for Mr Johnson closing parliament - legally known as prorogation.

First to "prevent or impede parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit".

And second to "allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no-deal Brexit without further parliamentary interference".

It said the suspension of parliament was therefore "unlawful and is thus null and of no effect".

A UK government spokesperson said they were "disappointed" at the decision and claimed suspending parliament was "the legal and necessary way" of delivering "a strong domestic legislative agenda".

Government sources believe the court's decision does not mean parliament is automatically un-suspended, since the order enforcing will not be published before the Supreme Court showdown next week.

Posted on September 11, 2019 by Rev. Stuart Campbell
In normal times we’d at least find today’s landmark defeat of the UK government in a Scottish court amusing. But these are not normal times, and at the present moment our toxic loathing of every politician in Westminster makes it a bitter fruit.

Although we must admit this bit still did manage to raise a smile:

What does it all actually mean, though? Well, not much.

1. Firstly, Parliament will NOT be recalled. Such a move is constitutionally up to the Prime Minister alone, and it’s stupendously unlikely he’ll do it before the case goes to the UK Supreme Court next week for appeal.

2. It’s distinctly possible that the Supreme Court will overturn the decision. But that case is due to be heard on 17 September. Even if it upholds the decision, party conference season will have already started with the Lib Dems this coming Saturday. Parliament is due to be closed even if the prorogation is reversed.

3. Even if all the parties agreed to cancel their conferences – which would be an astonishing, almost inconceivable move given how much turmoil they’re all in and how much they need to sort their positions out – and return to Parliament, what would it achieve?

A law has already been passed forcing the PM to ask the EU for another extension. All bringing back Parliament would do would be to force Johnson to be in the Commons when he could (at least in theory) be in Brussels attempting to negotiate a new deal.

It would also open up the possibility of allowing him to make further attempts to dissolve Parliament by one means or another and trigger the pre-November election he wants.

4. And what of independence? If the judgement is upheld by the Supreme Court it undermines the SNP’s long-argued position that Scotland has no influence in the UK when it matters. Unionists who are currently wavering would be reassured about Scotland’s status as a valued and key partner and therefore the importance of keeping Scottish MPs in Westminster. The tiny pro-indy majority that’s just beginning to coalesce in polls would die overnight.

(Even if the judgement ISN’T upheld we’ve still made it look as if it’s at least arguable that Scotland has influence and an equal voice, subject to the vagaries of individual judges, when we know that in all normal circumstances it doesn’t.)

And all of that obviously goes ten times as much if the SNP ultimately succeed in playing a crucial role in averting Brexit for the whole UK.

(And if they don’t, and Brexit happens anyway, they’ll have thrown away a moment of extremely rare leverage and ushered in a hard-right UK government for the next five years or more which will never allow a second indyref.)

So as coldly entertaining as the UK government’s fit of pique today might be, we hope you’ll forgive us if we don’t hang out the bunting. Nothing that happened today is of any meaningful consequence for the UK’s prospects of leaving or remaining in the EU, and the only kind of news it represents for the cause of independence is bad news.

Meanwhile from the BBC
Brexit: Scottish judges rule Parliament suspension is unlawful
2 hours ago
8701commentsShare this with Facebook Share this with Messenger Share this with Twitter Share this with Email Share
Related TopicsParliament suspension 2019

Media captionThe court ruled that the prime minister was attempting to "stymie Parliament" by suspending it for five weeks
Boris Johnson’s suspension of the UK Parliament is unlawful, Scotland’s highest civil court has ruled.

A panel of three judges at the Court of Session found in favour of a cross-party group of politicians who were challenging the prime minister's move.

The judges said the PM was attempting to prevent Parliament holding the government to account ahead of Brexit.

A UK government appeal against the ruling will be heard by the Supreme Court in London next week.

The Court of Session decision overturns an earlier ruling from the court, which said last week that Mr Johnson had not broken the law.

Why is this court ruling significant?
MPs demand Parliament be recalled after court case
Why are MPs being sent home?
The current five week suspension of Parliament, a process known as proroguing, started in the early hours of Tuesday.

MPs are not scheduled to return to Parliament until 14 October, when there will be a Queen's Speech outlining Mr Johnson's legislative plans. The UK is due to leave the EU on 31 October.

Opposition parties have called for Parliament to be immediately recalled in the wake of the court judgement, but Downing Street said this would not happen ahead of the Supreme Court's ruling on the case.

Downing Street also distanced itself from reports that quoted Number 10 sources as suggesting the Scottish judges were politically biased, and insisted that the prime minister has "absolute respect" for the independence of the judiciary.

What did the Scottish judges say?
Mr Johnson had previously insisted that it was normal practice for a new government to prorogue Parliament, and that it was "nonsense" to suggest he was attempting to undermine democracy.

But the Court of Session judges were unanimous in finding that Mr Johnson was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament", and he had effectively misled the Queen in advising her to suspend Parliament.

They added: "The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the prime minister's advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."

Media captionJoanna Cherry: "I would feel confident that the UK Supreme Court will uphold this decision."
The group of more than 70 largely pro-Remain MPs and peers behind the legal challenge were headed by SNP MP Joanna Cherry, who said they felt "utterly vindicated".

The parliamentarians appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session after their original challenge to the suspension of Parliament was dismissed by judge Lord Doherty last week.

Lord Doherty said Mr Johnson had not broken the law by proroguing Parliament, and that it was for MPs and the electorate to judge the prime minister's actions rather than the courts.

But the three Inner House judges said they disagreed with Lord Doherty's ruling because this particular prorogation had been a "tactic to frustrate Parliament" rather than a legitimate use of the power.

Image copyrightUK PARLIAMENT
Image caption
Mr Johnson has strongly denied suggestions that he was attempting to undermine democracy
One of the three judges, Lord Brodie, said: "This was an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities.

"It was to be inferred that the principal reasons for the prorogation were to prevent or impede Parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit, and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no-deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference."

Lord Drummond Young said that the UK government had failed to show a valid reason for the prorogation, adding: "The circumstances, particularly the length of the prorogation, showed that the purpose was to prevent such scrutiny.

"The only inference that could be drawn was that the UK government and the prime minister wished to restrict Parliament."

The High Court in London says that advice given by the prime minister to the Queen to suspend parliament is basically "political" - something the government has argued from the get go - and so it's not a matter the courts should get involved in because there are really no legal standards against which to judge it.

Scotland's highest court disagreed, strongly.

It ruled that the prime minister's advice could be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny. That's because parliament's role in scrutinising the government is a central pillar of our constitution, which follows naturally from the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

Two courts, two totally contradictory judgments.

They are now both hurtling towards the highest court in the land, the UK Supreme Court, where that contradiction will be resolved. There will be a definitive ruling on whether the prime minister acted unlawfully, or not - and that will determine whether parliament is to be recalled in the lead up to 31 October.

And that is how our constitution works. Through what's known as judicial review, independent judges can stop the might of government in its tracks if what ministers have done is unlawful. Because as lawyers like to say: "Be you ever so mighty, the law is above you."

No-deal Brexit: Documents on food and medicine shortages should be kept secret to avoid scaring public, minister says'Putting out there all of the possible permutations of what could happen actually just serves to concern people', Andrea Leadsom claims

Rob MerrickDeputy Political Editor @Rob_Merrick

Documents warning of food, fuel and medicine shortages after a no-deal Brexit should be kept secret because they will scare people, a government minister says.

Andrea Leadsom, the business secretary, signalled Boris Johnson will defy parliament’s order to release the Operation Yellowhammer dossier – arguing the public was better left in the dark.

“I actually do not think that it serves people well to see what is the absolutely worst thing that can happen,” Ms Leadsom said.

She then downplayed the risks set out by civil servants – of delays at ports of up to two-and-a-half days and disruption lasting three months – to akin to the small danger of being knocked over by a car.

“The worst thing that could happen to me is I could walk out of here and get run over,” she told the BBC’s Breakfast Time programme.

Brexit risks UK break-up 'if citizens angered by different rules'

“It is not a prediction, but it is something that could happen and simply putting out there all of the possible permutations of what could happen actually just serves to concern people – whereas what the government is doing is working flat out to ensure that in all circumstances, including in the event of no-deal, that we have a smooth transition for the United Kingdom.”

The comments come as the clock ticks down to the deadline of 11pm tonight for the government to comply with parliament’s instruction to release the Yellowhammer documents.

MPs voted by 311 to 302 in favour on Monday, in yet another defeat for the prime minister led by Dominic Grieve, the former Conservative attorney general.

Downing Street has yet to say if it will comply with the order, but may agree to release some of the less-damaging information.

The Yellowhammer file also warned that efforts to avoid the return of a hard border in Ireland are likely to prove “unsustainable”, with “significant economic, legal and biosecurity risks” that would require checks.

“Disruption to key sectors and job losses are likely to result in protests and direct action with road blockages,” it concluded.

Ministers were forced to acknowledge that, far from being “out of date" as they initially claimed, the dossier had been put together at the start of August.

The 11pm deadline also applies to WhatsApp, Facebook, text messages and personal emails from No 10 advisers, in a bid to prove Mr Johnson prorogued parliament because of Brexit, despite his denials.

That controversy has been given a rocket boost today by the shock decision, by the Court of Sessions in Scotland, that the prime minister misled the Queen over the true reason.

I am still trying to find more information on the documents, but the fact that the government tried to hide them and it took a court order for the public to see them (and even then some of it is a redacted) is not likely to play well.

This is a breaking story right now...more later

expatriate Californian living in rural Ireland with husband, dogs, horses. garden and many, many cats

Sky News Breaking
@SkyNewsBreak
·
35m
Replying to
@SkyNewsBreak
The Government's no deal Brexit preparation documents say the flow of cross-Channel goods could be reduced to 40% of current rates on day one with "significant disruption lasting up to six months" that could "have an impact on the supply of medicines and medical supplies"
Sky News Breaking
@SkyNewsBreak
·
22m
The Government's no deal Brexit preparation documents say UK nationals will lose their EU citizenship and as a result "can expect to lose associated rights and access to services over time, or be required to access them on a different basis to now"

expatriate Californian living in rural Ireland with husband, dogs, horses. garden and many, many cats

Doesn't the PM and his advisors have "executive privilege" to their confidential discussions like our executive does in the U.S.? With these "Yellowhammer" papers, seems like a simple case of "buzz off" to me. Redactions are to be expected.

As far as the Scottish court declaring the "prorogue" or whatever of Parliament illegal.....appears to be good old American "judge shopping" gone U.K.-ish. What will it be...2 out of 3? 3 out of 4? Good grief.

NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.

"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.